Mock+Trial+Prep+II

=** Mock Trials begin on Monday, May 3rd. **=

Mock TRial Prep II Case Preparation

Order In The CourtWhat is the layout of a typical court? ===Trial Process Class Notes Worksheet [|courtroom+diagram+ws.final+draft2.docm]=== = = =[|Direct Examination Example]= = = = Cross Examination Example = = = =Direct & Cross Examination Worksheet [|Q Prep activity ws.doc]=

Opening Statement [|Opening Rubric R1.5.doc] Direct Examination [|DirectExam rubricR 1.6.doc]

Witness [|Witness RubricR 1.6.doc]

Cross Examination [|crossexam rubricR 1.5.doc]

Closing [|closing outline rubricR 1.6.doc]

Order In The CourtWhat is the layout of a typical court? ===**Trial Process Class Notes Worksheet [|courtroom+diagram+ws.final+draft2.docm]**=== = = =**[|Direct Examination Example]**= = = =** Cross Examination Example **= = = =**Direct & Cross Examination Worksheet [|Q Prep activity ws.doc]**= = = = = = = =** Make Your Case Trial Game **= = = = =
 * //Make Your Case// Check For Understanding Q (4/19)**

• Place trial steps in proper sequence from the opening statement to closing argument.(Handout) • 1. What is the purpose of an opening statement and closing argument? • 2. What is the difference between direct and cross examination? Describe & give examples. • 3. Who raises objections in a trial and why? • 4. Who rules on objections? • 5. What did the jury have to decide in this case? What burden of proof did the jurors have to apply to reach their verdict? • 6. What skills does an attorney need in trying a case such as this one?

=Case In Chief Trial Steps Sequencing Quiz [|trial steps quiz.doc]= The Case In Chief includes the following parts: direct examination, cross examination re-direct and re-cross.

=[|objection quiz.PDF]=

(A) DIRECT EXAM (B) CROSS EXAM (C) REDIRECT (D( RECROSS The case-in-chief represents the State's main case against the defendant. The witness box becomes the center of attention as it's time to hear the evidence. Once the court reconvenes, the process goes like this: //Judge//: Are the People ready to proceed? //Prosecutor//: We are, Your Honor. //Judge//: Very well. You may call your first witness. In direct examination (Part A), the prosecutor is not allowed to ask any leading questions, that is, anything which might suggest an answer (unless, the witness is called as a "hostile" witness). The purpose of direct exam is to ask simple background questions to help introduce each witness, and to allow each witness to testify what he or she knows, seen, heard, tasted, touched, or came to from one of their senses. What witnesses are expected to say has, of course, been determined beforehand by depositions, and although no one has "coached" the witnesses on how to say something, it is often the case that witnesses and the prosecution have rehearsed the form of questions and answers that will take place. The script, or sequence, of witnesses is more important, and usually consists of the following order:
 * 1) 1 PROSECUTION CASE-IN-CHIEF
 * 1) 1 - Witnesses who can testify to events leading up to the crime.
 * 2) 2 - Witnesses who can tell how and when the crime was discovered.
 * 3) 3 - Witnesses who can testify as to the defendant's whereabouts.
 * 4) 4 - Police officers and investigators who collected physical evidence.
 * 5) 5 - Criminalists, Medical Examiners, and Lab experts.
 * 6) 6 - Background witnesses on the defendant.
 * 7) 7 - Witnesses who can speak to the motive and possible means.
 * 8) 8 - Witnesses who can speak to defendant's behavior during arrest.

In cross examination (Part B), leading questions are allowed for the reason that a prosecution witness might not be inclined to respond favorably to a lawyer from the other side. Although objections could have been raised during the direct examination, it is entirely possible that the first objections in the trial will come from the prosecution who objects to the way the other side is handling one of their witnesses. Defense attorneys will usually try to impeach, or discredit, the prosecution's witnesses in one way or another through close observation of the witness during direct exam. These observations will consist of looking for the following things to probe for: a - the witness' demeanor--nervousness, defensiveness. b - the character of the testimony--is it something they would know. c - the extent of their ability to perceive or recollect. d - the opportunity they had to perceive and register the event. e - their character for honesty. f - the existence of any bias, interest, or other motive. g - previous inconsistency--with other cases, in their deposition. h - accuracy--if they would contradict themselves given other facts. i - attitude toward the case--if they want the defendant found guilty.

In redirect, the prosecution will try to rehabilitate the credibility of their witness or restore the weight of the testimony given. It is important to understand that with redirect (as with recross which follows) that both sides cannot keep going over old territory. They must confine the purpose of redirect and recross to new or surprising issues that came out in cross exam. Likewise, recross must be confined to new issues that came out during redirect. This follow-up process of direct-cross-redirect-recross is repeated with the defense's case-in-chief.

At this stage, the prosecution returns to its desk, and before sitting down, says: //Prosecutor//: Your Honor, the People rest.
 * 1) 2 THE PROSECUTION RESTS

In direct examination (part A), the defense must decide (after a brief recess) if they are going to stick to their alibi defense (usually the best bet) or consider another theory (perhaps a mitigated, lesser offense). The biggest gamble of all is to begin with the defendant testifying on their own behalf. Constitutionally, the defendant doesn't have to, but the reality often is the defendant talked to police or investigators during arrest or interrogation. Putting your client on the stand right away would probably only be a good strategy if there was no communication with police, and previous cross-examination made a shambles out of the State's witnesses. Instead, the usual strategy is to line-up your defense witnesses as follows:
 * 1) 3 DEFENSE CASE-IN-CHIEF
 * 1) 1 - Witnesses who can attack police handling of the evidence.
 * 2) 2 - Expert witnesses who can counter the prosecution's evidence.
 * 3) 3 - Witnesses who can make the defendant look good.
 * 4) 4 - Witnesses who can shed light on alternative theories.

One can expect lots of vigorous objections by the prosecution to this line-up of witnesses. It is, after all, solely intended to raise reasonable doubt. First, the defense shifts the spotlight from the defendant to the shoddy police work involved. Former police officers from out-of-state are usually brought in to walk the jury through how the police should have done things. Experts in criminalistics (crime scene reconstruction) are then allowed to razzle-dazzle the jury with computer animations of how it could have happened. At this point, the trial has become a battle of the experts: scientific experts, medical experts, almost every kind imaginable are called in to shatter the prosecution's experts. Finally, you call in buddies of the defendant, friends who can give good character evidence. The defense has also probably done its own investigation, and is able to produce average citizens from around town who can testify as to unknown, suspicious figures they saw lurking in the shadows (but not resembling the defendant) at the time of the crime. All the above casts serious doubt.

The defense attorney approaches their desk, and says: //Defense//: Your Honor, the Defense rests. = = = = = = =**The Trial Process**=
 * 1) 9 THE DEFENSE RESTS

The United States declared its independence from England over 200 years ago. At that time, Americans said every person has a free and equal opportunity to pursue life, liberty, and happiness. Sometimes one person's pursuit of happiness interferes with that of another person. To help with the conflicts this interference can cause, the citizens of this country agreed to certain guidelines for their behavior. These guidelines are what make up our system of laws. The reasons for conflicts between persons vary. A person might not know or understand the law. A person might choose to deliberately break a law. Laws do not cover every possible situation. Sometimes one individual comes into conflict with another individual. Sometimes the conflict is between an individual and the government. At other times an individual may offend the general will of the people. These disputes need to be settled in a way that fits the democratic principles of our society. The resolution might be stating the rights of both parties; determining guilt or innocence; directing one person to make up for harming another; or imposing a fine or sentence as punishment for breaking the law. A trial is one way to settle disputes. However, going to court usually should be the last resort. People should try to work out their problems. Three common ways of settling disputes without going to court are: // (1) Arbitration // --a third party, called an arbitrator, hears the complaints and makes a decision that the parties have agreed in advance to accept. This is a process less formal than a trial. // (2) Mediation // --the parties talk with the help of a third person, called a mediator, who helps them find a compromise or a common ground on which they can agree to a solution // (3) Negotiation-- // the parties talk face to face and try to settle the conflict or reach an agreement. When these methods fail, parties in dispute sometimes go to trial to find a solution. This way of settling disputes is called //litigation//; litigation is where one party files a lawsuit (legal contest carried on by the judicial process) against another person and they have a trial in court to resolve the dispute. This system followed by courts to try cases is called the adversary system or process. In this procedure, there are two different sides who turn to a third, impartial party. This means that two or more persons who are in conflict present their arguments and evidence before a third party who is not involved in the dispute. This third party makes a decision. The third party can be a judge only or a judge and a jury. The job of the judge or jury is to be the trier of fact. A trial revolves around an argument involving two or more people. The people who bring their argument to trial are called the **parties** to the case. In a civil trial, one person is complaining about something another person did or failed to do. The person who does the complaining is called the**plaintiff**. The person he/she is complaining about is called the **defendant**. In a criminal trial, a person is accused of a particular act which the law calls a crime, such as murder or robbery. The person who does the accusing is called the **prosecutor**. The prosecutor speaks on behalf of the government, which represents the people of the state or nation. The person accused of the crime is called the **defendant**. Usually both parties will hire lawyers and instruct them to prepare the case and make arguments for them in court. Long before the trial actually happens, some argument or incident occurred. The argument or incident involves many facts, which together make up the **case**. Persons on opposite sides of a case often will view facts quite differently. This disagreement over the facts forms the basis for what is to be decided at trial. In a trial, the parties present their differing versions of the facts before an impartial trier of fact, a judge or a jury. The job of the judge or jury is to decide which facts are correct. The judge or jury often needs more information than just the stories of each party. In a trial, the attorneys for each side present all of the factual information they can gather to support their side of the case. This information is called **evidence**. Evidence may take several forms including:
 * __The Parties__ **
 * __The Facts Of The Case__ **
 * __The Evidence__ **


 * [[image:http://nashljmrsagan.wikispaces.com/PicExportError height="11" caption="*"]] ||
 * Testimony: ** a person, called a **witness**, tells the court what he/she saw, heard, did, or experienced in relation to the incident in question
 * Testimony: ** a person, called a **witness**, tells the court what he/she saw, heard, did, or experienced in relation to the incident in question


 * [[image:http://nashljmrsagan.wikispaces.com/PicExportError height="11" caption="*"]] ||
 * Documents: ** letters, notes, deeds, bills, receipts, etc. that provide information about the case
 * Documents: ** letters, notes, deeds, bills, receipts, etc. that provide information about the case


 * [[image:http://nashljmrsagan.wikispaces.com/PicExportError height="11" caption="*"]] ||
 * Physical Evidence: ** articles such as weapons, drugs, clothing, etc. that can provide clues to the facts
 * Physical Evidence: ** articles such as weapons, drugs, clothing, etc. that can provide clues to the facts

There is a law of evidence or a rule called the **burden of proof**. The burden of proof is the obligation or necessity to prove the facts that are in dispute at a trial. In a civil case, the person doing the complaining (the plaintiff) has the burden of proof. This means he/she must convince the judge or jury that the facts are correct by a **preponderance of the evidence**, meaning their evidence is slightly more convincing than the evidence of the defendant. This means that at least 51 percent of the evidence supports the plaintiff's side. In a criminal case, the burden of proof is much stricter, because the defendant may go to prison if found guilty. Therefore, the prosecutor must convince the judge or jury **beyond a reasonable doubt** that the accused committed the crime. Some say this means the judge or jury must be at least 95 percent sure that the prosecutor is correct. __0% 50%| | 100%__ Preponderance Beyond Reasonable Doubt The complaining or accusing parties (the plaintiff or prosecutor) have the burden of proving their particular version of the facts. The job of the defense team is to present the best defense for their client. This may mean putting in evidence which prevents the prosecutor from meeting the burden of proof. To do this, the defense evidence should explain, disprove or discredit the evidence presented by the other party. The job of the defense team may mean not putting in any evidence at all and challenging the prosecutor for failing to prove its case. In criminal cases, defendants try to show a defense exists to the crime which would excuse the defendant: _ showing the defendant was not present at the scene of the crime (called an alibi). _ showing that the defendant was acting to protect himself/herself (self-defense). _ showing that the defendant was mentally deranged at the time of the crime and could not understand the difference between right and wrong (insanity defense). Attorneys are responsible for collecting all the evidence that supports the side of the case they are representing and for deciding how to use that evidence at the trial. In general, there should not be any surprises at the trial. Opposing attorneys must let each other know what evidence they have collected. This makes sure the trial is fair.
 * [[image:http://nashljmrsagan.wikispaces.com/PicExportError height="11" caption="*"]] ||
 * Expert Testimony: ** a professional person, someone not involved in the incident, who can give medical, scientific, or other instruction to the judge or jury to help decide the case.
 * __The Burden Of Proof__ **
 * __The Burden Of Proof__ **
 * __The Defense__ **
 * __Preparation For The Trial__ **